equipment_create_toolCreate an equipment item to track household tools and devices, with optional battery and description fields for detailed records.
Create an equipment item.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| battery_id | No | ||
| description | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Create an equipment item' and does not mention required fields, defaults, side effects, or what happens on creation. The schema shows name is required and battery_id/description have defaults, but the description adds no behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short and front-loaded, with no wasted words. However, it is under-specified rather than efficiently concise; a single sentence that adds no information beyond the tool name is not a well-structured description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a create tool with no annotations, no parameter documentation, and a large sibling set, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what an equipment item is, what fields are expected, or how this tool relates to equipment_list_tool/equipment_update_tool. The output schema exists but the description still leaves key usage questions unanswered.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented parameters. It does not explain what 'name', 'battery_id', or 'description' mean in the equipment context, nor how they relate to other entities like batteries. The schema provides only types and defaults, leaving the agent to guess semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear verb and resource ('Create an equipment item'), which is minimally adequate. However, it does not distinguish this tool from sibling create tools like equipment_update_tool or entity_create_tool, and the title merely restates the name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as equipment_update_tool or catalog_create_tool. The context of equipment creation is implied by the name, but no explicit conditions or exclusions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.